Further thoughts on Gay "Marriage"

I would like to share with you some random, long-winded thoughts on gay marriage. For the sake of brevity I have not included much by way of supplemental material on some of my more debated points but I will gladly point anyone in the proper direction if you would like to know the basis for my comments. Also, I would challenge those who disagree to provide counter-balancing arguments based on science, history or tradition.

What strikes me so often about this debate is that instead of reasoned arguments based on logic, ethics and truth what often happens is name-calling and straw man fallacies. To call me a bigot, homophobe or worse yet, “a fundamentalist Christian” does not refute my arguments but reveals the lack of arguments for the opposing side. I would rather get into a knock down, drag out discussion based on the issues than to have someone sling mud at me and then be self-justified in putting me in my place. As has been said, “when you throw mud at someone else you must realize you are only losing ground beneath your own feet.”

These are not intended to be the end all or be all of the argument and they are not even in totally logical or sequential order. But they are some thoughts I have had on the issue over the months and I have promised many I would comment on the raging battle. Much more could be said and will be as other weigh in.

Please, let me know your thoughts but I am looking for a civil discussion and not a shouting match.

1. Why must we equate a relationship of a man with another man or a woman with another woman as the same thing as a man with a woman? My point, which I will expand upon later in different forms goes to the heart of the issue. We are arguing about the definition of a word and that definition brings to mind specific thoughts, ideas and emotions. We can move the debate to “rights” or “equality” but the foundational issue is what is the definition of marriage? Do we maintain the historical, traditional, cultural definition or do we change the definition to broaden it to include any two legally consenting adults?

2. Further, why must we say that religious arguments are inherently invalid but a secular argument is valid? Isn’t the very difference we are discussing a difference in belief systems? God vs. no god, transcendent morality vs. relative morality? Why must we de facto disallow one view from the outset because it doesn’t line up with the opposing worldview? Why is it inherently wrong to make a distinction and limit the definition of the word and therefore the concept of marriage to refer to the intended permanent, monogamous, heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman? As soon as a person brings up an argument from religion he is dismissed and the basis for his argument is seen as invalid. But saying there is no god is also a philosophical proposition as well. And basis my arguments on the belief that there is no god is also a philosophical position. To argue that there are transcendent values based on a deity is a philosophical position. But to say that morals are relative and situational is also a philosophical position based on the belief that there is no transcendent order and that life exists by random chance over time. It is based on the assumption that we are all there is and that we based right and wrong on what we (or the majority of culture) decides is right and wrong.

3. Why are opinions based on emotions and personal sentiments inherently more valuable that opinions based on religious convictions and personal beliefs? On what basis does anyone make moral or ethical arguments? I based my arguments on “something” even if that something is my own subjective experience. A Christian bases his beliefs on the Bible and his understanding of a transcendent, eternal God. A Muslim bases his beliefs on the Koran and his understanding of Allah. A person who has no transcendent belief system bases his view of right and wrong on philosophical and ethical arguments created by philosophers. Some base it on tradition. Others base it on majority opinion. Others base it on their own personal beliefs (emotions, sentiments, opinions). All of us seem to inherently work out of a moral framework that we have learned and accepted as true. Perhaps this is what theologians and philosophers call a conscience. I would define a conscience as the internal moral mechanism based on the moral teaching that we have had that we accept as true and through which we determine if something is “right” or “wrong.” If that is the case then aren’t we just arguing beliefs based on perspective? And if that is the case then aren’t the religious arguments as valid as the non-religious arguments? If not, on what basis do you make that judgment?

4. Why must we be willing to ignore 6,000 years of recorded history, tradition that transcends national boundaries and cultures and the beliefs of the majority of people in our country to attempt a social experiment that will alter the very fabric of our society? This is really the rub of the issue on a cultural, practical basis. If the vote in California, lets say, had gone the other way and voters had approved gay marriage would we be having this discussion? It seems to me that the democratic process works as long as the decision goes my way. We have history, tradition and religious beliefs that are being ignored or disregarded for the sake of changing the fabric of society. Will gay marriage affect me? Surely it will because it changes the definition of marriage for everyone, not just homosexuals. If words are used in our thinking to define concepts then changing the definition of marriage is not only about changing words but changing concepts and thoughts. If gay marriage is viewed as “right” then to disagree is inherently “wrong.” We have already seen cases (perhaps rare at the moment but can it be forever?) where certain ideas are viewed as not only inherently wrong but also illegal and criminal. If we change the definition of marriage and allow for this right then those who speak against it are inherently wrong. Further, if that is the case and those words (sermons) are twisted and used for malevolent ends could it not be argued that those words are “hate speech” and should be censored? Certainly they could and conceivably they will over time. This would be a slippery slope if it has not already happened in other contexts (Canada and Europe presently). Why is it improper to define and limit a definition that has served society for written history?

5. What does it matter to me personally what other people do? It matters a lot! There is general morality that says some things are proper and some things are improper within society. We limit people all the time for the general good of society. One may certainly not run naked in the park or have public sex. Why? Because there is a consensus that those things are outside the bounds of public acceptance. We do so for the sake of children and for the sake of generally accepted public decency. If gay marriage is allowed then whenever the discussion comes up in a school classroom the teacher will be obligated to give every perspective on the issue or be accused of discrimination. Why should my child be forced to accept a position that we believe is morally unacceptable and against both history and tradition? Why should I have to explain to a toddler why the adopted child has two daddies? Once could say, oh you don’t have to accept it or teach it as morally valid to your children. But what would happen if a child stands up in a public school setting, say in fifth grade and says that homosexual marriage is wrong? That student would be corrected by no less an authority than his teacher with the full weight of the educational system behind that instructor. A classroom of young, impressionable minds is going to not hear equal time for opposing views but will hear what is the accepted and “legal” view. Even if it is never brought up in school or taught about (however unlikely a scenario that may be) it will still have to be addressed on a regular basis since it would be an accepted and protected part of society. So to say that gay marriage doesn’t affect my family or me and I should let people do whatever they want is just not accurate. I read recently the analogy of a large boat where one person is trying to drill a hole on the bottom. It could be argued that we should leave that person alone since his decision is not affecting you directly since he is not in your part of the boat. But to allow him to exercise his freedom on his side of the boat surely will have an effect on you as it brings down the whole ship. Likewise, changing the definition of marriage changes it for everyone not merely for those who are homosexual. His drilling a hole in California certainly will affect my end of the boat in North Dakota. Anyway, if that weren’t the case why would people from the rest of the country be so bent out of shape with what California decided? Their decision doesn’t affect everyone else, does it?

6. We make a mistake to equate historic civil rights that were based on nationality and skin color to gay rights that are based on sexual behavior and lifestyle. It has never been conclusively argued that homosexuality is genetic in its basis. In fact, much logic and science goes against a purely genetic argument. Studies of identical twins have shown conclusively that it cannot be a purely genetic basis. If it were purely genetic there would be a 100% concurrence rate (just like eye color, looks and physical traits). I would suggest that there is a complex matrix or influences that move a person to homosexuality and not a small percentage of those influences are from early childhood. This also explains why some people remember thoughts or feelings from early childhood. Further, if homosexuality were purely genetic and true homosexuals by definition did not have children biologically then prior to common fertilization treatments the “gay gene” would diminish from generation to generation. To put it in straightforward terms, let’s supposed that everyone on an island were purely homosexual, if you were to go back to that island in 75 or 100 years, how many people living in the island would be homosexual? The obvious answer would be none because there would be no next generation. Therefore there would inherently be a diminishing pool of the gene, as natural selection would eradicate that gene over time. The argument would have to be that homosexuality is a recessive gene. But if that were the case then wouldn’t everyone pick up a dominant heterosexual gene since presumably his or her parents were heterosexual. One could argue that there are many bisexual parents who don’t know or deny their homosexual tendencies but then it could be argued that there are many closet heterosexuals among the homosexual population. Worse still would be to say that homosexuality were a genetic aberration which then begs the question if it should be tested for and eradicated if found. I don’t intend to solve the “nature vs. nurture” argument for homosexual behavior but want to make the more modest argument that it is far from certain that homosexuality is genetic and that much argues against a purely genetic basis.

7. We must not mistake the argument for “civil rights.” This is an argument not over rights, which homosexuals have in most states under “domestic partnership laws,” but an argument over the nature and definition of the CONCEPT of marriage in our culture. The concept of marriage has had a very specific and limited application in western civilization at least from the times of the Romans. Further, it has been associated in our culture most directly to religious ideals stemming from the pages of the Old and New Testament. To acknowledge this is to merely acknowledge our history and heritage. Now some desire to change this and ignore this history and cry “foul” is anyone else brings this up. Why must we ignore the history and heritage of the majority of people who have lived in our country for the sake of an untried social experiment by expanding the definition of marriage?

8. During my Masters Degree studies I did extensive research on the question of homosexuality. First, a person must have two discussions because the nature and practices of male homosexuality are very different from that of female homosexuality. Reasons, rationales and potential causes seem to vary from the onset of the discussion so I will direct my comments to male homosexuality for the moment. Among the male homosexual population I was shocked to find the level of sexual partners to be shockingly distinct from the heterosexual population. It is not uncommon for practicing male homosexuals to “cruise” for an anonymous sexual encounter without strings attached or any intention for a relationship. This is based purely on physical attraction and desire. This is much more so than in heterosexual relationships. Some could argue that is true among heterosexual guys as well and I would grant the point. Men in general tend to be more focused on sex regardless of the existence or depth of a relationship. In general that is not the case for women but our culture is trying to change that. However, by in large it is still true that women do not seek anonymous sexual encounters with men. But this brings me to my very point. In a heterosexual relationship there are two people with different biological and psychological makeup that offset one another’s drives and desires. Together they bring a level of stability and consistency that is not found among practicing homosexual men. I think it could be decisively argued that the woman in the relationship pushes the couple towards stability and permanence even as the man in that relationship may initially be motivated more by physiological drives. Together they have the biological basis for marriage, both the permanence and stability of lasting relationship and the sexual drive that pushes people toward sexual encounters and procreation.

9. It could be argued that the institution of marriage is crumbling and that the idea of stability and permanence is from a bygone era. That may be the case to some extend but the solution is not to change the definition of marriage and bring into it a situation where the “couple” is inherently more promiscuous and less likely to remain in a long-term commitment. I believe the answer lies in the very opposite direction. We must strengthen the institution of marriage and hold it in high regard for the sake of the stability of our society and the future generations. So often people rise or fall to the level of expectation that is placed upon them. If we view marriage as a contract of convenience that is easily entered into and more easily dissolved then people will not weigh the decision heavily before entering in. However, if we as a society view marriage as a special relationship with clear boundaries and expectations then perhaps over time a greater number of couples will rise to the challenge. Will we ever have a perfect marriage in our culture? Of course not. We are too selfish and self-centered for that. But could we have a better situation? Absolutely. But the exact wrong answer for that is to broaden and water down the definition of marriage to allow for any two adults to become marriage partners.

10. If we do this, why stop there? Why not allow three people to get married or four? On what basis could you argue against polygamy if you allow for homosexual marriage? Who are you to decide what is right for three other consenting adults? Or four? Or five? The same arguments that justify homosexual marriage also justify polygamy? What arguments would be different? Why is two people “right” but three people “wrong”? The same arguments used to limit marriage to a man and women are the same ones that argue against polygamy. But to allow for homosexual marriage is to open the door inherently to all other types of social arrangements under the broadened definition of “marriage.” On what basis do we allow one and disallow the other if all we have is our own subject, personal opinions? Could we argue that it is better for society to disallow polygamy? Could we say it is better for children to disallow polygamy? Could we say that it flies in the face of history and tradition to disallow polygamy? Or does a proponent of gay marriage say we just like one and don’t like the other? As the philosopher Francis Schaeffer once quipped, “modern man has both feet firmly planted in midair.”

I share with you my thoughts, observations and ruminations to stir dialog and debate over the issue of gay marriage. Clearly I don’t think the issue is resolved and I don’t think that secularists have the moral high ground over those who hold to transcendent morality. We live in a pluralistic society and we need to allow all voices to be heard and weigh in on the argument. We should not inherently disallow arguments merely because they are based on religious teaching. Further, we need to question the basis of secular arguments for at the core they are based on personal, subjective opinion and nothing more. Even the notion of “rights” is based on the belief that there is transcendent morality. If a secularist wants to argue that there are transcendent rights not based on religion or ideas of God then I would like to hear his rationale.

As I said, much more could be said but it will need to wait for another post. I trust this challenges your thinking on this important cultural issue.

Moving to North Dakota-Volume 2

I know, ya'all were wondering whatever happened to volume 2? I didn't think about how hard it would be to chronicle our move with no real computer access.

Well, my Mac is up and running and I can give you a brief update on how our move has gone. The last you heard we were busy packing the house and getting ready for the movers. The movers came on October 24th and began packing things up and loading them onto the truck. Jenn and the kids went up to her parents' house the day before since it was getting dangerous to have the kids there while we were packing the last of the stuff. No toys, no TV, no comfort.

I was up late the day before packing and woke up early to finish as the movers were loading things onto the truck. After things were loaded I hung out with one of my closest friends for the evening before driving up to Glendora to be with Jenn and the family. It was sad to say goodbye but we had opportunities to see many people and many others came by the house the last few days we were in town.

We had a week between our furniture leaving and our following behind in cars so the family went up to Glendora to visit Jenn’s family and enjoy a week of no responsibilities. We went down to Mexico one last time before moving up to the Canadian Border. One friend of mine said only we would go to Mexico when we have one week left in Southern California!

We finally left for Grand Forks on Thursday, October 30th leaving mid-morning with the intention of staying in St. George Utah that first night. We drove right through the heart of Vegas. I was amazed to see that even the gas station also doubled as a casino. I wouldn't have been surprised to see a slot machine in the bathroom. I'm sure it is only because they haven't figured out sanitation issues or they would have them. Other than getting gas, we didn’t stay in Vegas for too long however. That was our first time in Vegas and I highly doubt I’ll be back there anytime soon.

The second night we stayed in Idaho Falls, ID at a place called Le Ritz. I was afraid the place was going to be a dive but it was an absolutely great hotel with spacious rooms, great service and a wonderful hot breakfast. In fact, both of the first two hotels were great. But our good fortune would not hold out for a third night.

We drove through Idaho and most of Montana. We stayed at a Best Western in the town of Glendive. I would change the spelling of the place to glenDIVE because we did not have a good experience there. As we drove up to the Best Western we were greeted by the Russian Mafia. Perhaps a slight exaggeration but not by much.

There was one door into the place and outside the door were six or eight guys all standing around chain-smoking. They were all rough looking characters and as we approached we could hear that they were all speaking in Russian. Who knew? The cloud of smoke parted enough for us to find the door handled and enter. They kept a really close eye on our vehicles, so much so that when I came back out one of them was scoping out our 4Runner! Maybe he was looking at our California license plate or else he was just checking out our car alarm system.

We had our attack Labrador, Zoe in the back so I wasn’t too worried (yeah, right). We did bring everything in without incident. They had reserved two very nice SMOKING rooms for our convenience. Maybe they just smelled all the smoke on our clothes from walking in the building. We switched that in a hurry. Our rooms were smaller than any other place we have stayed and I thought it was a mistake because of how much they charged us. No refrigerator in the room and barely enough room to put down our luggage. Not fun. We couldn’t wait for morning to come.

We got there so late we needed to get something to eat. Jenn’s dad and I decided to go out and find something open. He decided to drive which was fine with me after having driven for the last 10 hours. We drove around but the only place that was open was a “Taco John’s”. For those of you not from the Midwest, Taco John’s is like Taco Bell. Believe it or not it is actually a chain of “Mexican” food. How Mexican can a restaurant be with the name John. Shouldn’t it be “Juan”?

Two blocks before the restaurant we found the city of Glendive’s main source of income, their speed trap. HALF-way across the bridge the speed changes from 45 to 35 MPH and then to 25 MPH as the bridge ends. One of Glendive’s finest was kind enough to pull us over and give us a $65.00 reminder. He actually pulled us over as we were pulling into Taco John’s. We had to pay cash because we were from out of town and they were afraid that they wouldn’t get their money if we did it by mail. The mayor has to eat, ya know.

I needed change so I walked to the drive through of Taco John’s to break a $20. The cop didn’t carry change with him or it has been a busy night. We finally paid the ticket and drove to the drive through after that 20-minute ordeal. By this time it was 10:05 PM. You guessed it, Taco John’s closed at 10:00! We ended up going to a gas station to buy food. Needless to say, I drove.

The last day of driving was beautiful and uneventful. We only got separated once the entire drive but it was 45 minutes before arriving in Grand Forks when we were going to Wal Mart in Fargo. Good old Wal Mart, or as I call it, “My second home.” We were out of diapers, wipes and milk (nothing important).

We finally got to Grand Forks, got the keys to the house and saw it for the first time. Did I mention that we bought the house off the Internet. Okay, not exactly but that’s too long of a story to get into now. It really was the first time we were seeing our new house for the first time. But we absolutely love it so no complaints there. It wasn’t organized enough for us to stay there so we all stayed at a local hotel. This was one we’ve stayed at before so it wasn’t an issue.

Grace loves popcorn. That may seem random but she was asking for popcorn for hours so I bought some microwave popcorn for the hotel. The only thing worse than burnt microwave popcorn is burnt microwave popcorn in a small, enclosed place with no ventilation! We thought we were going to end up evacuating the hotel there was so much smoke. If anyone from the hotel reads this I’d suggest you check your smoke detectors.

Later that night I awoke feeling very nauseous. I figured it was the microwave popcorn smell lingering in the room. But in the morning I felt even worse, achy and feverish. I told Jenn to take the kids to breakfast as I didn’t feel well enough to go. Shortly after she left my body decided it wanted to return all the food I had eaten for a refund. We thought it was food poisoning (from the gas station in glenDIVE perhaps or the sandwiches we bought at Wal Mart). But apparently I had caught a stomach fu.

I was sick from Monday through Friday, Grace got sick on Friday and was better by Sunday night and Jenn got sick on Friday night and was felling better by Monday. Alexander managed to miss the entire thing! Strange that the kid who picks up random things off the floor and puts them into his mouth is the only one not to get sick!

Well, that’s about it other than unpacking our home and office. With all the illness things have been slow going but the church ahs been absolutely wonderful bringing over meals every night of the week and volunteering to help us unpack. Now that everyone is healthy we should be able to finish the last of the boxes.

Sorry for the long delay before finishing the story but I hope that you had a few chuckles and enjoyed the story of our journey. By the way, sorry Chuck for your speeding ticket. I would have driven.

Moving to North Dakota-Volume 1

We're packing up the kids and moving to Grand Forks, ND!
I thought I would chronicle our move from San Diego to Grand Forks, North Dakota for you, our family and friends.

On a day here in San Diego where it was in the mid-90’s inland I received an email to make sure I check with the National Weather Service as several of the roads through the mountains were closed due to snow, SNOW! Talk about a quick reality check.

We began packing today and I have about half of my office already in boxes and hope to finish with that tomorrow. We also have friends coming over to help us pack tomorrow so we should get a good jump on it. One of the things that always runs through a person’s mind when he is packing is that now would be a good time to get rid of some of that useless stuff that you have acquired over the years. All I can say to that is, “Yeah, right.”

Mind you, I have every intention myself of doing that and have divested myself of many things over the years as I have moved from apartments to condos or condos to a house but it seems that the stuff just multiplies faster than you can give it away. I recall throwing out all of my neon clothes from the 80’s only for it to be replaced with equally trendy and later discarded clothes from the 90’s. Now, it is close to the end of the first decade of the 21st century and I’m going through my clothes again. Why do they look similar to the stuff I threw out in the 80’s? Hmm.

We’ve done a few things over the last month in preparation for our move. We have visited both Jenn’s parents in Glendora and my parents in Waukesha, WI. By the way, I ended up on the evening news while I was up there (boy, that was a loaded statement). Seriously, click here to read the transcript and watch the actual video. It was a “man on the street” interview about some vandalism that was occurring in the area. I told them I was from California just visiting my parents before moving to North Dakota. If you listen carefully they never say I actually live there. Tricky. At first I thought they lied.

Anyway, we also took the kids to Disneyland (for three full days!) with special “Southern California Special” tickets. That was a lot of fun for a day. We also went up to Julian, CA for a few days at a Bed and Breakfast in a small mining town in the mountains to celebrate Jenn’s “29th birthday.” It was Apple Harvest time so we enjoyed fresh baked pie along with wonderful food and quiet strolls through the town.

A few weeks ago I celebrated my 40th birthday party and was reminded not to give a one year old a piece of cake and turn your back for a minute. Turning 40 was no big deal actually. I didn’t have any existential experiences or profound realizations of my mortality. We had about 40 people over to the house (the number was purely coincidental) and had a great time celebrating. It was interesting watching some of my younger friends in their 20’s hanging out with people in their 70’s and 80’s but everyone had a good time. What made it extra special was having one of my closest friends in the world who was my Best Man at our wedding fly out to celebrate the day with us. If you read this Jason, thanks for celebrating another decade with me!

Well, that’s enough of a rambling blog for the night. I’ll throw some pictures up as we pack for the move and give you the blow by blow of all the action. We have movers this time so maybe I won’t break a bone like I did on one of our previous moves…maybe.

You're Moving Where?!?

Seriously friends, that isn't a misprint or typo! Jenn, the kids and I are moving to Grand Forks, ND.

Okay, now that I have your attention, what in the world is going on?

For the last year Jennifer and I have been praying and seeking the Lord's will for our future in life and ministry. After much consideration we both sensed that it was time to consider if the Lord was leading us in a new direction. With much prayer and godly counsel we began sending our resume out and listening to the various ministry opportunities that might be available for us.

I honestly can't begin to tell you how many different places from around the country that I began to receive contacts from. We heard from here in California to Virginia. We were contacted by churches in Arkansas and Wisconsin, Texas and Washington. But with each one we wanted to make sure that it was a place that would feel like home and that we could use our gifts and abilities to the greatest.

About mid-March I received a call from a gentleman who asked me if I would ever consider ministering in North Dakota. As I talked I quickly did a google search to see where that state was (just kidding I aced geography in 4th grade). I told him that we were open to wherever the Lord would call us. This began a long dialog with a church in Grand Forks, ND called Faith Evangelical Free Church. If you click on the link you will be taken to their webpage for more information.
We had the opportunity to meet with the leadership many times over the phone and in person. During the months the Lord continued to close the doors or lead away from every other opportunity that presented itself. Finally, in August we flew out there to formally candidate for the position. It was a wonderful weekend where we met many gracious people and a great leadership team already in place.

So what's the plan? We will continue our ministry here in El Cajon, CA through October 5, 2008 then we will begin the process of packing up and moving across country. No, we won't be traveling by covered wagon! We are excited about the future and all that God is going to do in our lives and how He will work through us in the years ahead.

Jenn is bracing herself to face the cold winters but with so many warm hearts in the congregation we see the weather as a non-issue (although it's funny how often people from Grand Forks bring it up?!?). Keep looking here for updates and the saga of our moving experiences. It is our hope that we will be able to spend time with many of our family and friends in the weeks leading up to our move so please take the opportunity to give us a call or drop by for a visit.

Well, that's about the biggest bombshell I think I've dropped on the blog page in a while. Thanks for reading this rambling post and I look forward to hearing from you in the days ahead.

With Love,

Dave and Family

Jet Favre

Okay, so what are my thoughts on Brett Favre going to the New York Jets?

Good Riddance!

What stage of grieving is that? Anger?

On a more serious note, I am sad to see that Brett will no longer be wearing a Green Bay Packer uniform but I am glad that I won't see him in a Bears or Vikings uniform. The thought was almost too much to handle. All things considered a move to an AFC team is about the best of a bad situation. That, and the Jets haven't done anything in, like, three decades so I don't have any animosity towards them. They have been so boring as of late I wondered if they were still an NFL team.

Like I have said previously, this will be much like Michael Jordan's stint on the Washington Wizards. All the Bulls fans remember and shrug it off as they replay the two Three-peats that the Bulls had during the Jordan era. Yeah, he was still on the court but it was a diminished Jordan that played. Better than most, granted, but not up to his greatness.

Favre has said that he is committed for one year with the Jets. I would guess that's about right. If they somehow manage to get into the playoffs and beat Indianapolis or New England and win a Super Bowl then Brett can ride off into the sunset as the reigning hero one last time (much like John Elway did with the Broncos). If they fail miserably I can't see Favre returning for another year either. If they have a heartbreaking loss like he did this past year with Green Bay I can't see him coming back. If they finish middle of the road with little look of improvement I can't see him coming back. Wait a second, I can't see too many scenarios where he would come back after this year...maybe that was Green Bay's point all along.

Well, I wish Favre the best and I will watch him play on his final farewell tour. If this were an alternate universe and the Super Bowl consisted of Green Bay vs. The Jets I would proudly sport my Green and Gold. In the final analysis I am first, last and always a Green Bay Packer fan.

Maybe this is all just a bad dream...

The Toughest Decision I'll make this Fall!

For months I hoped against hope that Brett Favre would be back playing football this fall. People said it was a case of denial (one of the five stages of grief). They were probably right. Imagine my surprise when I found out that Favre actually did want to play again. Oh, the joy and rapture. But now we have degenerated into this bizarre, dysfunctional drama that is playing out across the country.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a diehard Packer Fan and a rabid Brett Favre fan. In my mind a marriage made in heaven. Now I am having those feelings of vertigo that I had when Jordan came back and played for the Washington Wizards. Baseball I could see but an icon playing for another team?!? The perfect marriage is ending in a bitter, drawn out divorce. What about is kids?

It seems that we have crossed the Rubicon with this. So what are my thoughts? As much as I hate to say it, I understand the stance the Green Bay Packer franchise is taking in the entire ordeal. Favre wanted to come back in March and they were ready to fly out there and work out the details but he backed out. Maybe it was the pressure to stay retired, perhaps it was replays of the errant pass in the championship game in January. (sorry Brett but that was a bad throw.)

Did the Packers force his hand to decide prematurely to retire? Probably but it makes sense from a franchise perspective. Every year the retirement drama got more dragged out. Retirement watch would be put up about a third of the way through each year. It is inevitable that he would retire sometime, isn't it? Whatever the pressure, he made the decision without a gun put to his head and in a teary-eyed interview made his decision known to the world. The state of Wisconsin had a vigil reserved for kings and popes and the rest of the football world shrugged and moved on.

The Packers made the only decision they could make and moved on with Aaron Rodgers and begin rebuilding the team around him. A month before preseason Favre decides to unretire and he wants to force Green Bay's hand. Coupled in the drama is the reality that he may have already struck a deal with arch rival Minnesota (or even the hated Bears)! The Packers are in a no-win situation.

So what should the Green Bay Packers do? Are you kidding?!? Take Favre back, beg his forgiveness and let him start in September! Do you even need to ask the question?

But if that doesn't happen will I continue to root for the Green Bay Packers or continue to follow the career of Brett Favre?

Its the toughest decision I will have to make this fall but here is my answer, I will continue to root for the Green Bay Packers and watch whatever team Favre plays with go to the Super Bowl as Aaron Rodgers recuperates from another season ending injury.

Brett, just stay retired already.

Update on my Mom's Surgery

Dear Friends,

Last Thursday my mother began experiencing pain in her chest and after debating for most of the day decided to go to the hospital. Test on Friday revealed that she had not had a heart attack YET but would certainly have a catastrophic one within the next three months if she did not have surgery.

On Monday afternoon she went in for a triple bypass surgery at Waukesha Memorial Hospital and it was a complete success! This is rated as the best heart hospital in Wisconsin and the surgeons are top notch. She was in ICU for just under 48 hours following the surgery and is now in the cardiac care unit of the hospital.

The doctors have been extremely positive about the surgery and her full recovery. Because they caught it before she had a heart attack they said her heart is structurally sound. The doctor commented that she has the heart of a 16 year old and he wished all his patients hearts looked this good. I hope she passed those genes onto me!

It looks like she will be in the hospital until Saturday or perhaps Sunday and then will be recovering at home. Other than a minor setback today she has done amazingly well and I appreciate all the prayers from everyone who has hear about her situation.

Thanks again for all your love and prayers.

Sincerely,

Dave

Gay "Marriage" and overriding the will of the people

Today the California Supreme Court overruled the will of the people and rewrote the law to affirm "gay Marriage" in the state of California.

I will address the moral, ethical and logical problems at another time but today I just want to address a fundamental constitutional issue, namely that it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to make law or to rewrite the state constitution to find rights that were not previously there or intended by the original framers of that constitution.

The purpose and the extent of the authority of the Supreme Court, whether state or federal, is to interpret and apply the laws and to see that those laws are in keeping with the intent of the constitution. The problem arises in that some relativistic judges believe that the constitution is a "living document" that can be reinterpreted for every generation.

Underlying this is a worldview that says that there are no absolutes, that law is about "will to power" and that it is impossible to actually determine original intent so we are free to decide what "something means to me." They apply this to law by saying that we need to take into account the mores and opinions of the current generation rather than try to discern what the intent was of the framers of the said law or, in this case, the constitution.

From a legal standpoint I have several issues. First, I would argue that it was not within the view of the framers of the California State Constitution to affirm the legality of "Homosexual Marriage." For us to find that "right" in the constitution is to read into it something that was not there and not intended by the original framers.

Secondly, there was a law passed in 1077 that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." Beyond that there was a voter initiative passed in 2000 that clarified that further by saying that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This not only bans "gay marriage" but also polygamy.

Finally, related to the second point, the court has overthrown the will of the people. It was the express intent of the people of California to affirm and clarify the law that was already on the books to define what marriage is and is not. That is within the rights of the people and by extension the right of the legislature but it is not within the authority of the courts to decide that.

What was done today was done under the guise of civil rights. First of all, one would need to argue that marriage must be defined broadly or else it is a violation of rights. However, we are within our rights to define marriage the way it has been done within our country since its founding and the way it has been historically in most cultures from time immemorial.

We pass laws all the time to define what marriage is. We say that a brother and sister may not marry. We have said that an adult may not marry a child. We have said that a person cannot have multiple wives. We have also said that marriage must be between two human beings (therefore you cannot marry your dog).

I’ll address this issue again looking at it from an historical and biblical perspective. But let me reiterate my point here in saying that the state supreme court overstepped their authority in undermining the will of the legislature and the people by redefining the entire concept of marriage.

At this point only a constitutional amendment can override the great travesty that has been done and that is exactly what we intend to do in November unless the activist court tries to block that by divine fiat as well.

Parents' 60th Anniversary and Indiana Vacation

Where do people who live in sunny, southern California go on vacation? I mean, we have the beach, the mountains, the city, and a foreign country all within a 45 minute drive in any direction. In addition we have LA, Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu, Universal Studio Citywalk and Disneyland. We go to Wisconsin and the Amish country of Indiana!

Actually, the main reason we went was to celebrate my parents' 60th wedding anniversary but since we were flying all the way out there we figured we should make a vacation of it and visit my best friend and his wife. The farm country of of Indiana was so peaceful and quiet. No homeless people wandering the streets, there wasn't the incessant police sirens, and we didn't have to worry about walking down the street and getting hit up for money. Also, we didn't see a lot of tagging and gang activity. What a change from El Cajon where our church got tagged on Easter morning!

Here are a few pictures of our trip.

This is a fun shot of Grace. She wears headphones and watches movies on my iPod when we fly. A few Disney movies sure make for a more pleasant four hour plane ride!


These are some fun pictures we took the last week in April while we were getting ready to travel to Wisconsin for my parents' 60th wedding anniversary. They love each other so much and enjoy each other so much. I hope they stay like this when they are teenagers!


These are a few pictures of my parents with the kids. My parents were married on May 1, 1948 and just celebrated 60 years of marriage together. It was a great time to see family and spend time together. I'm the youngest of eight kids and together my parents have 17 grandkids and 9 great-grandchildren!


One of the days we were up in Wisconsin the clouds clear away and we were able to go to the park. This is the same park that my parents took me when I was a kid so it was fun to watch the kids play and have fun.


Alexander is such a big boy! It is crazy how much he has grown in just nine months. He was a premie but he has blown by all the growth charts and is actually on the big side for his age. It's crazy how quickly they grow up.


On our way down to Indiana we stopped to visit a great friend of ours, Alex Mrakovich. Alex was in my youth group when I was in Lombard and I had the chance to watch him grow up. He is a junior in college now and has a dynamic walk with the Lord. He is the young man that our son is named after.


Jenn, the family and I spend a week in the middle of Amish country visiting Jon and Julie Dingeldein and their families. Jon and Julie are godparents to Grace and is one of my best friends. What was cool is that our son is named Alexander Jonathan after Alex above and Jon shown in these pictures. Alexander had a chance to spend time with both of them on the same day last Sunday.


These are just a few of the cool shots that we took on vacation. It's funny that this is one of the few pictures I have of the whole family together. On most trips I'm stuck behind the camera.

I hope you enjoyed the pictures and always feel free to comment. If you want any of the pictures, click on them which will take you to the full size photo, then right click on your mouse and hit "save photo as" and you should be able to download them to your desktop or a file.

Girl Dies when Parents Pick Prayer over Physicians

I just read an article about a young Wisconsin girl who died because her parents chose prayer over calling for an ambulance or taking her to the doctor. Click here to read the full article.

I initially saw the report yesterday on the news while I was finishing my workout at the gym. A retired teacher sitting next to me in the locker room commented how sad it was to see something like that report on TV. He said it was the “fundamentalist Christians” who are so dogmatic that allow things like this to happen. He went on to relay a story about a student at his old high school who was suffering from a disease and the school’s hands were tied from trying to help her. The student eventually died from a completely treatable illness.

I didn’t tell him I was a pastor but I did say that I was a Christian and I have a different view of this whole sad situation. I told him that I do believe in divine healing but it is not an “either/or” between prayer and calling the doctor. I will pray as I am calling the doctor and doing everything humanly possible to try to help the person. From the Christian perspective, all healing is divine healing. God created this wonderful body with the ability to repair itself. This was not the result of blind mechanical chance but was put there by a loving God. So all healing comes from God. Some healing is through the normal process that God designed and some is directly from God.

Also, I reminded the teacher, Stu, God does not promise to always heal in this life. In fact, one of the authors of the New Testament was a physician and his profession is never called into question or disparaged. Furthermore, even among the Apostles and early disciples God did not always immediately and directly intervene to bring supernatural healing.

The Apostle Paul told Timothy, “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Timothy 5:23) Now, there were very practical reasons for Paul to prescribe this. The water was often less than sanitary and likely to have parasites and other little critters that could cause problems. Wine, with its mild alcohol content, would not have the number and types of parasites and would also act medicinally to help Timothy’s stomach and frequent other sicknesses. Obviously Paul was a believer in God’s ability to answer prayer. He was not speaking against prayer but was also reminding Timothy that there are other practical things you can do to care for yourself.

When Paul himself had a physical problem (caused or magnified by demonic activity) he prayed three times for it to be removed and for himself to be healed but God said no. (2 Corinthians 12:7-9) There was a greater purpose in Paul’s suffering. Though this experience Paul learned to rely on God more fully than he had up to that point. Something that immediate relief would not have taught him. Another friend of Paul, Epaphroditus, was sick to the point of death but he survived and Paul greatly rejoiced over his recovery. Through prayer the process of healing took place. Prayer and caring for yourself through medical means are not antithetical. We should always rely upon God but we should also take advantage of all that God has made available to us through medicine.

As I learn more about this story there are a couple other observations that I have. First, this family was in isolation from other Christians and the corrective and guiding influence of a church family. We are all prone to wander in our understanding if we don’t have the corrective influence of others. One of the mottos of the Reformation was that we are “reformed and always reforming.” The point being that we conform ourselves to the Bible but we don’t think we are above error so we are constantly rechecking ourselves in light of that truth. God has given us pastors and teacher to share their insights with us and help us reevaluate our assumptions. Not that any teacher is above error as well but collectively we are more likely to catch our errors early and not allow them to have such a devastating effect.

For the believer we need to understand that God’s promise for true healing is intended for the resurrected life following our death and the Lord’s return. That is when the Bible says we will receive our resurrected and glorified bodies like Jesus’ glorified body. (1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 15:51-53) There are times that God is pleased to bestow some of those blessings on us early here and now. As an expression of His grace and because of Jesus’ work on the cross we are able to receive God’s goodness in advance as it were and be healed. But we need to understand that this isn’t the norm for this life and it isn’t something that we can demand from God right now. When God does intervene in a direct and miraculous way that healing is outside of His normal operating procedure.

The mistake some make, and this poor family made, was to see something that is promised for the next life and occasionally is given early as an expression of God’s grace and try to make it something that is a given in this life and something that we can demand or expect from God here and now. This is one of the grave errors of the “health and wealth” movement. They make blessings that are for us in the future and try to make them normative now. If God had promised us complete health and healing in this life no Christian would ever get sick, old or die. People would look perpetually in the 20’s or 30’s, injuries would heal themselves and amputees would re-grow limbs.

Healing is but one example of a greater truth. That is the Christian life is only the beginning of God’s blessings to us who believe. The Bible tells us that we have only received a down payment or the first fruits of our salvation. (Ephesians 1:13-14; Romans 8:23) In our knowledge of God we “see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know as fully just as I also have been fully known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12) As C.S. Lewis commented that for the believer this life is the beginning of heaven. But we need to understand that we won’t receive all the blessings of our salvation until the time when Christ returns and all things are made new.

As more comes out with this story it will be interesting to find out if they were intentionally opposed to medical treatment or just naively foolish to not get treatment for their daughter by some misguided understanding of what having faith is. I do think they might find themselves accountable for their actions if their negligence in any way directly caused their daughter’s death.

I have mixed feelings about this case. Generally speaking I don’t like government intrusion into private family affairs or into personal religious beliefs. However, it seems wrong to sit by and do nothing while a family exercises their beliefs which cause the harm or death of another person. This is one of those tough cases where one is left to wonder when it is right and appropriate for the authorities to step in and intervene. Personally, if I had been there and known about the situation I don’t think I could have sat by and done nothing. I would have felt compelled to act.

As a Christian this is a reminder to me to be careful that I don’t allow a private conviction or a personal belief slip into my thinking that does not allow for the correcting of God’s word through the ministry of others. We should never be so dogmatic about our convictions that we are not willing to examine them anew in the light of Scripture and plain reason.

Sermons Online are Here!

My sermons are now online! Click here!

Once on the web page click on the podcast link and it will open your iTunes and begin the download. New sermons will be downloaded when they are posted and you open your iTunes program.

You can also listen to the latest sermon on the web page. Just to let you know I began preaching through Romans in June and will post them two a week beginning with chapter 1.

Hope you enjoy and let me know what you think!

Thanks!

Dave

A Few New Pics

This is a picture of Alexander with the young man that he was named after. Alexander Mrakovich was a young kid in the church In Lombard, IL. where I served as youth pastor. He impressed me with his love for the Lord, his passion for truth and his joy of life. I've had the privilege of watching him grow up to be a man of God who leads worship at his college and has a desire for ministry. There are very few young men I respect as much as Alex. Jenn and I both liked the name and thought it would be meaningful to name him after Alex as he remains a dear friend to us to this day.


This is Alex's first bites of solid food. He has since graduated to green vegetables. It is hard to beleive that he is six months old this week!


Alex savors a mouthful of something other than milk. Now the possibilities are endless!


Some close friends of ours have blessed us with season passes to the San Diego Zoo. This picture was taken a few days before the tiger attack up north. I think we'd think twice next time we visit. Someone had a dog with him which set the lions off to pacing. Scary!


Yes, I am out of my gourd. (Yes, I also write my own jokes.)


Huh? What's over there? I can't see. Drat, I can't even crawl yet.


Princess Grace. Talk about a girly girl. She loves to dress up in princess dresses, complete with high heals, earrings, and a tiara.


This is Alex and Grace at Christmas. She loves her little brother. She wants to hold him all the time. I hope it stays that way.


This is Alex with Grandpa Monreal up in Wisconsin over Christmas. He is so wonderful with kids. Alex and Grace really love him.


Grace waits patiently as Grandma Monreal opens her gift. If she doesn't do it quickly Grace is sure to help.


Grace has absolutely no idea what Daddy is doing out side. What is all that white stuff falling down? Obviously we weren't in San Diego when this was taken.


Grace was ready to go outside and join me in the snow. Why is snow so much fun when you are a kid and such a pain as an adult?


Two diehard Green Bay Packer fans. There will always be next year (Favre, please come back).


A few fun-filled moments with Grandma and Grandpa. They love their new grandson.


Alex is perpetually amazed at every new object. Here he is fascinated with a few of his Christmas gifts.


Alex is one happy baby. In fact, both Grace and Alex were joyful, laughing children. What a blessing.


This final shot was taken in Lombard at a restaurant called Ed Debevic's. They specialize in insulting the people who patronize their place. Only in Chicago!

Well friends, that is a few recent pictures of family and friends and gives you a little insight into our life. I want to thank all of you who continue to check up on us and read our blog page. Some of the stuff consists of my ranbling streams of consciousness.

By the way, the church recently put up a webpage. (You can now download my sermons at www.cccelcajon.com) Check it out sometime. We'll be posting two to three sermons a week until we are caught up.